Talk:Miranda class/archive
Dimensions Can we have sources for the dimensions and the ships mass please ? I do not believe these were ever shown on screen or stated in dialogue. Alex Peckover 12:49, Aug 5, 2004 (CEST) :I examined the specifications, the armament and mass i could find no canon source for. I replaced it with new data from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, since the tech manual data is given credence if uncontradicted by dialogue on this site. The measurement i'm still looking at, as i have to see if they are correct. --Captain Mike K. Bartel Okay, if they're from a semi-canon source then that's fine by me. I just prefer to see references for this kind of information as I find it's common for Star Trek fans to make this sort of thing up. Alex Peckover 09:46, Aug 6, 2004 (CEST) I don't find the mass of the Miranda class even remotely acceptable. The only official reference for the Big E (Connie) is 195,000MT . Why is the Miranda based on the 'million ton' hyperbolic statement from Scotty? If the FJ Tech Manual cannot be cited, I see no reason that the error-ridden and often rediculous DS9 TM be accepted. (Vanguard) upside down When designing the new class of ship for "The Wrath of Khan", a mistake between the art department and the director when mailing the blueprints made the ship upside down. Instead of correcting the mistake, they decided that they liked the ship being upside down. I thought I heard this on the audio commentary to the director's edition of the movie. I don't have the movie with me right now, so I add this note here, instead of the main page. -- unsigned :I can confirm this as I have the Director's Edition of The Wrath of Khan. I cannot remember specifically which director/crew members are involved, but the one who signed off on the design for the Miranda was in Israel at the time (possibly filming something else) and when he received the draft drawings, he took it out upside-down. He literally signed his approval of the design on the sheet and sent it back. When the art department got this back, they saw that his notes and signature were upside-down with regards to the true orientation of the drawing, and they decided to use it the way the director obviously viewed it. I'll further clarify this statement over the weekend by re-watching it. --Commander, Starbase 23 14:57, 11th August 2006 ::Wasn't that from the ''Search for Spock commentary? I could have sworn the crewmember in question was Leonard Nimoy, the director of that film... he might have been approving the design for the ''Grissom'' or the ''Excelsior''. I thought Nimoy was doing a play or a mini-series or something in Israel just prior to the start of filming on Star Trek III. Eh... I might be wrong... --From Andoria with Love 11:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC) :Okay, right now I'm watching my "Disk 2 - Special Features" of the Director's Edition of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, specifically the "Designing Khan" featurette. According to the interviews in this, the movie's Art Director--Lee Cole--sent the sketch of the Reliant to producer Harve Bennett, who was in Israel making a film about the life of their PM Golda Maier. He pulled out the sketch upside-down, approved of it and sent it back. When Lee got it back, she saw that he'd signed off on the bottom of it saying "this looks fine to me"--but upside-down with regards to the intended orientation. They debated sending it back to Israel to correct this, but Production Designer Joe Jennings and Mike Minor realised their wasn't enough time to send it over and get it back, so they decided to go with it as Harve had seen it, and as we all know, it worked out pretty well as a result. Thus, we have the Avenger/Miranda-class we all know and love. The End. *grin* So, with this taken straight from the disk, should we put this up on the main page, as the original poster wanted? --Commander, Starbase 23 15:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC) deflector Question: Wheres the deflector on this ship? AmdrBoltz 04:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :It doesn't have one, in the sense we usually see it. Star Trek the magazine speculated that it uses a combination of forcefields and the shileld grid on the ships hull to make up for this. There are also those two round protrusions we don't really know what do, perhaps they're related. -AJHalliwell 05:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::It is also possible that the ship is fitted with a small, fixed-focus deflector array (such as the one mentioned in the Next Generation Technical Manual as being fitted to the ventral surface of the primary hull of Galaxy-class starships for use in separated operation). This would have to be supported by close examination of the ship, however. -4.240.239.30 07:06, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::After examining a few high-resolution images of the ship, it seems the deflector array could also be mounted on the forward portion of the 'rollbar' atop the ship. It seems like an ideal location, especially when you consider the ship was designed to appear upside-down relative to what was ultimately filmed (see above). Close-up views show two ports that emit a purplish-blue glow. -4.240.239.30 07:33, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::I always thought the round objects projecting from the square part of the upper hull were the equivalent of the single main defelector. They glow blue and they face forward.--GreatBear 06:07, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::Just an opening disclaimer: all this information I'm giving here is not canon. I have the deck plans of the original non-canon Avenger-class heavy frigate and the later non-canon Miranda-class cruiser, and both state that the small, "four-window" wedges found both port and starboard on the underside of the extended rear hull at the aft of the ship are "Wide Angle Deflector Emitters (or WADE for short). On a purely frontal view of the ship, these "emitters" would appear to be blocked by the curve of the ventral saucer, but that's what the non-canon plans state. If I can find a good screen-capture or schematic, I'll post it here, if that's acceptable? --Commander, Starbase 23 15:04, 11th August 2006 ::::Here's a picture with the yellow boxes highlighting the navigational deflectors as specified in th non-canon deck plans: --Commander, Starbase23 15:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) :::::That positioning makes no sense. For the navigational deflectors to work, they need to be facing the direction of travel, not pointing straight down. I think the fans have got it very, very wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC) ::::They're not pointing straight down. The four "windows" are sloped forwards, possiblty at a 45-degree angle. But since they are "windows" of a sort, they're just covers for the equipment behind them, which would be projecting the deflector beams forward. Of course, before I got all these deck plans and schematics, I thought the round protrusions from the built-up hull port and starboard of the bridge and on the top of the torpedo pod were the Nav Deflectors as well. The same fanon deck plans and schematics I have (Todd Allan Guenther's "Ships of the Star Fleet" and the "Miranda Class Cruiser General Plans" by Michael C. Rupprecht & Alex Rosenzweig) make them the sensors mounts that are at the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions around the main sensor disk of the Enterprise. --Commander, Starbase23 16:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::I think that OuroborosCobra was referring to the two features highlighted on the image above -- they face straight down. ::::::The features non-canon blueprints call deflectors, Cmdr23, are on the top of the saucer, and are not visible on this image. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::::The original Starship Enterprise (NCC-1701) blueprints from the mid-1970's indicated that the three rounded lights on the front of the Enterprise's saucer section served as backup navi-deflectors. Maybe it's not so much of a stretch to say that the lights on the hull of the Reliant, et. al., are a kind of dispersed navi-deflector array. This would also explain the lights on the front of the command section of Klingon starships. Ol' Horta Face 02:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC) ::i've always figured that the reason the deflector dishes are big and dish shaped was not the deflector part, but because they doubled as a sensor platform. i see no reason why a series of smaller emmitters couldn't line the front hull of the Miranda, maybe even combined into the Sheild gridwork. a big distributed deflector. the Constellation class would use the same set up. - Mithril 21:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Pna Just following through with the boilerplate. Needs to be overhauled, with an end result something like that found on D'deridex class. Plenty of interior shots from "Emissary", ST II, "Night Terrors", and possibly others that can be intergrated into the page. --Alan del Beccio 06:40, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) That 70's Ship I took out the reference to the 1970s and clarified the source of the name Avenger. I actually still have the drawings mentioned. Overhaul I am totally going to revise this article to look more like the Nebula-class article. I will keep the information from the current article though. Ensign q 16:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Pulse Phasers? If the Defiant is listed as being one of the first ships to use pulse phasers, why is the Reliant listed as mounting them? that would mean pulse phasers are technology 80 years older than implied. the discontinuity is odd. presumably the 'pulse phaser' referance is the result of the appreance of the Reliants phaser fire, which is in small pulses. but since we see the exact same type of weapons fire from the Enterprise's phaser banks, it stands to reason the Reliant merely mounted the same type of phasers, just in a unique location. the fact that the Defiants pulse phasers and the phasers used by the reliant have very different visual appearrance also seems to support the different system. The Defiant is the onley ship type that has it. The Miranda Class has got Phaser Emmitters no Phaser Pulse Cannons Why did it outlive the Constitution-class? The Miranda-class is no where near as rugged, durable, or heavily armed as the Constitution-class. Why did it outlive it? -- :What is the basis for your statement about the Constitution being more rugged, durable, and more heavily armed? Granted weaopons load may make sense, but the rest of it is never stated in canon. The other thing is simply age of design. The Miranda was a new desgin, where the Constitution was a refit of an old design, with fewer growth prospects. The Mirandas in the 24th century indeed may have received upgrades to stay in service. :Here is a real world example. In the late 1940s early 50s, the US was looking at a design for a new long range heavy bomber. They had the existing B-36, and created a heavily upgraded version of it called the B-60. It was pretty much as good as a new design, the B-52. They opted for the B-52 over the B-60 because the B-52 had more capability for future upgrades, since it was an all new design itself. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC) **The Miranda-class seemed to be the Stormtrooper of space. Those type of ships had trouble hitting any modern target, and were dropped by glancing blows. And, it is a light cruiser, not meant for heavy fighting, while the Constitution-class, in it's refit stages, was a heavy duty cruiser. Over the course of the 24th Century, the Constitution-class could have been further upgraded to be the Light Cruisers of the modern day. They seemed to be able to take more hits than the Miranda-class after all. :::Again, what is the basis for your comparison to the Stormtrooper of space? As for performance against modern targets, you have no idea how a refit constitution would perform, you've never seen one in battle. Now for the heavy cruiser/light cruiser problem. Yes, the Constitution was designated as a heavy cruiser, but perhaps it was not as good in that role as the Miranda was as a light cruiser. You also don't necesserily replace a light cruiser just because you have a heavy one. Heavy cruisers are big and expensive to operate, light cruisers are not. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ::::Hate to break in on the conversation, the refit Constitution class was seen in battle in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Of course, I may not be understanding you properly, in which case, you can ignore this. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :::I think this person is asking why the Miranda kept going after the refit Constitution was retired. We still see them in the Dominion War, while we don't see the Constitution again after the events of ST VI. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :::actually, the USS Olympia appeared to be a refit constitution class, and it was still in active duty as of 2363. it crashed in 2371. so some constitution class ships were still in use right up to the dominion war. in regards to the miranda, i think it's versitility is why it stays in use. we've seen it as a warship, science ship, and cargo ship. it would not be a difficult stretch to assume some as transports for personell. since the basic hull seems to be easily modifiable to different roles, it was probably retained because it fills the non-combat duties well despite the age. -Mithril 15:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::::I think the reason that you NEVER see the Constitution Refit filming model in ANY episodes of TNG, VOY, DS9, or ENT is due to perhaps some obscure copyright arrangements between Roddenberry and Paramount that were first enacted when ST:TMP was created. Roddenberry had considerable control of several aspects of ST IP which Paramount went out of their way to break immidiately following the release of the first film. So I think this was more a matter of Hollywood politics than that of one ship "outliving" the other. :::::Just pointing out that evidence for Connies in the 24th century is as old as BOBW II, as parts of at least one is seen at Wolf 359 (the aftermath).Capt Christopher Donovan 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Apocryphal Appearances Everyone tells of this fabled USS Ranger NCC-1975 as "seen" in Star Trek: New Worlds, apparently from a teaser/trailer for the game back in '99. I spent 2 hours looking for it last night on Google and YouTube, to no avail. I got a teaser movie from '99, I have the trailer from the Klingon Academy installation, and I have the opening movie from New Worlds itself, and I've yet to hear mention of the Ranger. Can someone tell me where this data came from, and where I can find it? --Commander, Starbase 23 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC) :It was not a movie, nor was it the game itself -- i observed a game demo which featured a control panel where you could make contact with other captains on a viewscreen, one of those contacted was the CO of the USS Ranger. No idea how to find it now, but someone else who has it located the ship's registry there, NCC-1975. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC) extra impulse nacelles This pic proves some Miranda class ships had extra impulse nacelles :\ http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/KnowYourRoots/mir.jpg --70.51.245.157 18:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC) :No, it proves that that part of the ship glows red. :P :By the way, there's no such thing as an impulse "nacelle" -- they usually just have red vents. You might be assuming that every part of a Federation ship that glows red is an impulse vent, but this is a pretty deep assumption, don't you think? Not much is "proved" by this picture. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC) true, but how come not all miranda class ships have that feature? http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/miranda-sacrificeofangels.jpg 70.51.245.157 18:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC) :Because they have rear torpedo launchers there instead? Regardless, just becaue one ship has a different lighting scheme, its a big assumption to say that the lights "definitely" indicate some feature the ship wasn't confirmed to have. :Please do not break Memory Alpha policy and hotlink to another website that isn't yours. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC) I am sorry. 64.230.100.175 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC) ::So, after brightening that pic, we have a fx F-up on our hands...unfortunately from what I understand about MA policy, that is not sufficient to ignore the pic. So, we have a Miranda Variant with the Impulse Engines sharing space with the torpedo tubed in the "roll bar" pod. Which is an idiotic thing to do, (the fuel and plasma transfer conduits must be a plumbers' nightmare)...but there you have it...